How Jesus became god'... from not being one. Bart Ehrman.

[ding]

you are playing with semantics.

Of course, he's a troll.

And you are the genius solving all the Worlds problems in your schizophrenic mind

Nope. Never claimed that. Don't know where you would get such a silly idea from.

You claim to have the answers to all the worlds problems every time you post here, the only person who does not see that is you

I don't recall making that claim. Show me.

 

[ding]

you are playing with semantics.

Of course, he's a troll.

And you are the genius solving all the Worlds problems in your schizophrenic mind

Nope. Never claimed that. Don't know where you would get such a silly idea from.

Esalla it is impossible to talk a psychotic OUT of his
delusions

Yea I know but he is funny

Birds of a feather flock together.

 

[esalla]

you are playing with semantics.

Of course, he's a troll.

And you are the genius solving all the Worlds problems in your schizophrenic mind

Nope. Never claimed that. Don't know where you would get such a silly idea from.

You claim to have the answers to all the worlds problems every time you post here, the only person who does not see that is you

I don't recall making that claim. Show me.

I never said that you made that claim, what I said you are the genius solving all the Worlds problems in your schizophrenic mind

So schizzo I made the claim not you.................

Got that schizz

 

[esalla]

you are playing with semantics.

Of course, he's a troll.

And you are the genius solving all the Worlds problems in your schizophrenic mind

Nope. Never claimed that. Don't know where you would get such a silly idea from.

Esalla it is impossible to talk a psychotic OUT of his
delusions

Yea I know but he is funny

Birds of a feather flock together.

I do not have feathers

Do you?

 

[ding]

you are playing with semantics.

Of course, he's a troll.

And you are the genius solving all the Worlds problems in your schizophrenic mind

Nope. Never claimed that. Don't know where you would get such a silly idea from.

You claim to have the answers to all the worlds problems every time you post here, the only person who does not see that is you

I don't recall making that claim. Show me.

I never said that you made that claim, what I said you are the genius solving all the Worlds problems in your schizophrenic mind

So schizzo I made the claim not you.................

Got that schizz

You said, " You claim to have the answers to all the worlds problems every time you post here"

It's right there in the thread chain dummy.

 

[ding]

you are playing with semantics.

Of course, he's a troll.

And you are the genius solving all the Worlds problems in your schizophrenic mind

Nope. Never claimed that. Don't know where you would get such a silly idea from.

Esalla it is impossible to talk a psychotic OUT of his
delusions

Yea I know but he is funny

Birds of a feather flock together.

I do not have feathers

Do you?

It's an expression, Jake Spooner.

I have peace.

 

[esalla]

You know nothing about Germans and Germany. You justify with your crude absurde racism only your own dead ears.

I know exactly as much about Germany as you do about America, you hypocritical fool.

And now the same sentence in German please. Not even the ambassadors of the USA in Germany speak German any longer - asides that there is no ambassador of the USA in Germany any longer - what's perhaps better than to have to hear the totally absurde and idiotic things, which your ambassadors say.

Apparently you misunderstood my post. Germans have about as much business interjecting themselves in American issues as Americans have in interjecting themselves in German issues. Now do you understand?

I don't like to reduce the USA to 1/3 of its size and power and murder many innocent US-Americans only on reason you think it would be fair to do so.

As for my comment about your hypocrisy that should have been self evident but if it wasn't let me know and I will find a ten year old to explain it to you.

I guess you should slowly start to read and to try to understand what I said to you. You will not find what I think in your own "allknowing ignorance".

Oh, I am understanding you perfectly. You are against peaceable law abiding citizens owning firearms. So were the Nazi's.

Good grief. Younahvbe absliteolyn oit aqny ide whatbyiunaoke abgaort. Nazis were exacxtly like the agressive weapon fetishists of the USA. This ro0ght wonger adn teh commie left wingers kileldintheir street fight the democracy of Weimar. IN then end the nepoe were hapey thatineof tehirteosw wan. ebcaeu tehy thousght the distattert will stop. But it did not stop.

Germans don't have a seat at this discussion.

Because you don't like to hear the truth that the weapone fetishism of the people in the USA is a damned ugly thing?

It's not your country.

Not really. About 40% of all US-Americans have a German ancestor. And you would be astonished if you would know how many institutions of the USA were founded from Germans. England was by the way also founded from Germans. France too. Sa,me wtnNetdland and others. And Germans have by the way also Roman ancestors.

Your people have fucked up the world enough already.

Germany never had done anything bad to the USA. And the USA is somehow like a kind of granchild for us.

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …" Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

Yes Ding if you say so, but that is not the answer to any of the worlds problems

So try again, you have made thousands of these babbling babbles

 

[ding]

You know nothing about Germans and Germany. You justify with your crude absurde racism only your own dead ears.

I know exactly as much about Germany as you do about America, you hypocritical fool.

And now the same sentence in German please. Not even the ambassadors of the USA in Germany speak German any longer - asides that there is no ambassador of the USA in Germany any longer - what's perhaps better than to have to hear the totally absurde and idiotic things, which your ambassadors say.

Apparently you misunderstood my post. Germans have about as much business interjecting themselves in American issues as Americans have in interjecting themselves in German issues. Now do you understand?

I don't like to reduce the USA to 1/3 of its size and power and murder many innocent US-Americans only on reason you think it would be fair to do so.

As for my comment about your hypocrisy that should have been self evident but if it wasn't let me know and I will find a ten year old to explain it to you.

I guess you should slowly start to read and to try to understand what I said to you. You will not find what I think in your own "allknowing ignorance".

Oh, I am understanding you perfectly. You are against peaceable law abiding citizens owning firearms. So were the Nazi's.

Good grief. Younahvbe absliteolyn oit aqny ide whatbyiunaoke abgaort. Nazis were exacxtly like the agressive weapon fetishists of the USA. This ro0ght wonger adn teh commie left wingers kileldintheir street fight the democracy of Weimar. IN then end the nepoe were hapey thatineof tehirteosw wan. ebcaeu tehy thousght the distattert will stop. But it did not stop.

Germans don't have a seat at this discussion.

Because you don't like to hear the truth that the weapone fetishism of the people in the USA is a damned ugly thing?

It's not your country.

Not really. About 40% of all US-Americans have a German ancestor. And you would be astonished if you would know how many institutions of the USA were founded from Germans. England was by the way also founded from Germans. France too. Sa,me wtnNetdland and others. And Germans have by the way also Roman ancestors.

Your people have fucked up the world enough already.

Germany never had done anything bad to the USA. And the USA is somehow like a kind of granchild for us.

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …" Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

Yes Ding if you say so, but that is not the answer to any of the worlds problems

So try again, you have made thousands of these babbling babbles

I never claimed to have the answers though. YOU claimed I have the answers.

 

[esalla]

I already showed that there is, dummy.
If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.



Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.



So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.



Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.



If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

That's on Topic but already Refuted.

""If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. ""​

As the earth's population grew and towns and cities arose, Societies NATURALLY ADAPTED to things like property and personal rights.
Caveman NATURALLY took everything they could get from whoever they could get it.
And there are still tribes raiding the tribe next door.
'Morality' naturally grew out need for the golden rule in tighter quarters.
Now there are many rights that aren't even even claimed to be natural (Free speech, gay marriage, 2nd amendment) but Esoteric for all kinds of groups, genders, etc.
Rights/Morality are an ever-changing Man-made concept and differ across cultures and religions.
`
YOU STILL LOSE long post guy because the truth is pretty simple.

`

No. It hasn't been refuted, dummy. Reason and logic determine right and wrong. I love that you argue against reason and logic.

Ding also thinks that he determines reason and logic both, when in reality he can determine neither

Again kid there are thousands more

Try again Doc

 

[ding]

^ he mad

 

[james bond]

As the earth's population grew and towns and cities arose, Societies NATURALLY ADAPTED to things like property and personal rights.
Caveman NATURALLY took everything they could get from whoever they could get it.
And there are still tribes raiding the tribe next door.
'Morality' naturally grew out need for the golden rule in tighter quarters.
Now there are many rights that aren't even even claimed to be natural (Free speech, gay marriage, 2nd amendment) but Esoteric for all kinds of groups, genders, etc.
Rights/Morality are an ever-changing Man-made concept and differ across cultures and religions.
`
YOU STILL LOSE long post guy because the truth is pretty simple.

So much wrong in this so that you LOSE. There were no cavemen. Why would people live in caves when they had better places they could settle? It's common sense. Societies didn't naturally adapt, they fought wars. Moses led 2.4 million ancient peoples, 600,000 of which were military out to the promised land. Later, people grouped together by language and ethnicity and the population grew and towns and cities arose as the masses settled in different countries. Later, the USA was founded on winning wars and battles with the British.

Furthermore, you contradict yourself and societies naturally adapting. Tribes raiding the tribes next door was the norm for their betterment and survival. Most early civilizations grouped together to protect themselves. The ones who made the best weapons started to rule their lands.

>>'Morality' naturally grew out need for the golden rule in tighter quarters.'<<

This is just circular reasoning. No explanation of how the any of this came about from tribes warring against each other. People did live in tighter quarters as they do today. You conveniently leave out how the losers like you were put into slavery.

>>Now there are many rights that aren't even even claimed to be natural (Free speech, gay marriage, 2nd amendment) but Esoteric for all kinds of groups, genders, etc.<<

Next, you jump into modern times and leave out the continued moral problems we have. For example, free speech isn't free. Gay marriage shouldn't be allowed. Gays shouldn't happen naturally. Second amendment should be what came after tribes raiding one another. I have no idea what is esoteric for all kinds of groups and genders.

Simply, you don't know what you are talking about haha.

What did he lose? What did you win?

He lost everything. I'm still laughing at tighter quarters:

"'Morality' naturally grew out need for the golden rule in tighter quarters."

 

[BreezeWood]

^ he mad

.

.
who's next -

is that suppose to be a monolith or something, bing.

 

[esalla]

As the earth's population grew and towns and cities arose, Societies NATURALLY ADAPTED to things like property and personal rights.
Caveman NATURALLY took everything they could get from whoever they could get it.
And there are still tribes raiding the tribe next door.
'Morality' naturally grew out need for the golden rule in tighter quarters.
Now there are many rights that aren't even even claimed to be natural (Free speech, gay marriage, 2nd amendment) but Esoteric for all kinds of groups, genders, etc.
Rights/Morality are an ever-changing Man-made concept and differ across cultures and religions.
`
YOU STILL LOSE long post guy because the truth is pretty simple.

So much wrong in this so that you LOSE. There were no cavemen. Why would people live in caves when they had better places they could settle? It's common sense. Societies didn't naturally adapt, they fought wars. Moses led 2.4 million ancient peoples, 600,000 of which were military out to the promised land. Later, people grouped together by language and ethnicity and the population grew and towns and cities arose as the masses settled in different countries. Later, the USA was founded on winning wars and battles with the British.

Furthermore, you contradict yourself and societies naturally adapting. Tribes raiding the tribes next door was the norm for their betterment and survival. Most early civilizations grouped together to protect themselves. The ones who made the best weapons started to rule their lands.

>>'Morality' naturally grew out need for the golden rule in tighter quarters.'<<

This is just circular reasoning. No explanation of how the any of this came about from tribes warring against each other. People did live in tighter quarters as they do today. You conveniently leave out how the losers like you were put into slavery.

>>Now there are many rights that aren't even even claimed to be natural (Free speech, gay marriage, 2nd amendment) but Esoteric for all kinds of groups, genders, etc.<<

Next, you jump into modern times and leave out the continued moral problems we have. For example, free speech isn't free. Gay marriage shouldn't be allowed. Gays shouldn't happen naturally. Second amendment should be what came after tribes raiding one another. I have no idea what is esoteric for all kinds of groups and genders.

Simply, you don't know what you are talking about haha.

What did he lose? What did you win?

He lost everything. I'm still laughing at tighter quarters:

"'Morality' naturally grew out need for the golden rule in tighter quarters."

Whaaaasssssss

If you say so mr bond

 

[james bond]

He lost everything. I'm still laughing at tighter quarters:

"'Morality' naturally grew out need for the golden rule in tighter quarters."

Whaaaasssssss

If you say so mr bond

You have no sense of humor.

 

[ding]

^ he mad

.
View attachment 388739
.
who's next -

is that suppose to be a monolith or something, bing.

It's good that it went over your head.

 

[BreezeWood]

^ he mad

.
View attachment 388739
.
who's next -

is that suppose to be a monolith or something, bing.

It's good that it went over your head.

.

It's good that it went over your head.

.
really, something special ... they look like they've been poisoned are you kgb. novichok.

 

[zaangalewa]

... What was the approximate date of the first epic poem?

Sîn-leqe-unnīnnī wrote down the last version of Gilgamesh epos in the 13th century before Christ. But before existed also versions of this epos from the king of Uruk and his friend Enkidu.

What did they write on and how was it stored so that losers could waste their time reading it

Try to read it and you will find out how strange you sound in my view to see the world. The textes of the bible are for sure much more easy able to be understood. Nevertheless I like Enkidu and the Gilgamesh epos, what doesn't mean I understand this way to live. But I also don't understand the way to live of the US-American weapon fetishists and the slavery of all US-Americans in context of criminal organsations as for example the NRA, which makes the whole USA to a victim of the drug "sword". Guns make no one free in the USA.

Yes, it makes so much sense for a German to look down on Americans.

It is as I said it here. You demonstrate very well with this words that your only argument is destruction and death any longer. You know nothing about Germans and Germany. You justify with your crude absurde racism only your own dead ears.

No, my post wasn't destructive. My post was sarcastic.

The USA had not any reason to begin a war against Germany - but you feel damned proud that you wan this war against your grandparents. That's sarcasm.

Your post - the post I responded to with sarcasm - was the destructive post.

Way to accuse me of what you did.

Dead ears.

Leave it to you to blame America instead of Germany for WWII.

I spoke not about world war 2. I spoke about one war. Worls war 1+2 are the same war for me. And now your nation is on the direct way into world war 3.

Again, Germans literally have zero room to talk about starting wars.

I'm only pretty sure American citizens owning guns won't start a war. Stop being a drama queen and get the sand out of your vagina. Mind your own business. Germans don't get a say on American citizens owning guns.

I don't have any idea how to translate your last sentence here - after the nonsense you said before - into the German language.

It means stop being overly emotional and start using your brain.

Frankenstein, this helps not to translate the strange sentence "Germans don't get a say on American citizens owning guns". Makes the structure of sentence in the English language any sense? It's by the way worse enough that the mad man Donald Trump created irreversible damages in the world economy without asking and/or listening to anyone else except his US-American narcissism. The attitude of US-Americans first to destroy and afterwards to ask what it was is more than only mad.

I can't help you. But I can totally understand why Germans might think that the attitude of US-Americans first to destroy and afterwards to ask what it was.

This sentence is not complete. Complete it please.

No wonder... it was copied from one of your posts.

You said "But I can totally understand why Germans might think that the attitude of US-Americans first to destroy and afterwards to ask what it was."

This sentence is grammatically not complete (is without statement, message). Complete it please. What do you understand?

 

[zaangalewa]

In ~ 1935 Adolf enacted the NUREMBERG code which is not much more or less than the Canon Law enacted
by CONSTANTINE in the time that he was Emperor of the HOLEY roman empire. It include disarmament of all "enemies" which in Germany (and for Constantine) largely referred to jews. Adolf did not impose disarmament on christian german citizens---but I believe he insisted on registration of fire arms. The ban was supposed to include conquered nations too

And your point?

several points would be clear to all but the brainless----VERY IMPORTANT is the fact that disarming this or that population was NOTHING NEW in the "holy
roman empire" -----for the record---the THIRD REICH actually means THE THIRD HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE.

The Holy Roman Empire of German (=united) Nation was not a nation state. It was founde in 800 and ended in 1806. Afterwards existed no empire any longer. The "empire" which was founded in 1870 in Versailles was not reaqlly a German emapiurre as it is often called - it was a Prussian empire, the Prussain overtook Germany with their militaristic structure. The Austrian empire for example was excluded from this Germany - and many other German traibes or nartion were seen from Berlin only as "colonies of Prussia".

Hitler used in his propagda the words "third empire" instead of "republic of Weimar" because he made clear the time for democracies is over - but he made nothing to reorganize in Germany anythin in sense of the holy empire. The Nazis had nothing to do with the Christian religion nor with Christains valeus. They were a military dictatorship.

I consider it a fascinating point that the NUREMBERG LAWS are nothing more than a recapitulation of the original laws of the holy roman empire. The Spartans disarmed the HELOTS---also an oppressed underclass being "not greek

The Nurnberg laws were modern racists laws comparable with the racist laws in the USA. The antisemitism of the Nazis had biological, darwinstsic reasons. Nothing what the Nazis did do had to do with the holy empire. The holy empire was not racistic - the holy empire was a elitarian society. Everyone was born in functions and had a speciel place in the society with special rules. That's absolutelly not comparable with the 1000 years empire of the Nazis from 1933-1945.

you are playing with semantics.

Exactly. I am playing with semantics - another word for this is "to think".

Whatever the composition of the REICHS

German: "das Reich" - plural "die Reiche". English: "the empire", plural "the empires".

(I should add----that
I am descended from persons of the SECOND
REICH

Never anyone called it the second empire - or das zweite Reich. It's normally called Germany or the German empire (Deutschland oder das deutsche Reich). But indeed it was a Prussian empire. As a result of the international war in Germany against Napoleon Bonaparte the European nations made Prussia strong and Prussia conquered in the follwoing decades one by the naxt German country and made it to a colony of Prussia. The French and the English empire had a very big influence on the Prussians, that's why they liked to become a colonial power on their own.

----ie jews of the Austria-Hungarian EMPIRE------

OKay ... somehow you are also able to call Austria-Hungaria a second German (=deutsch = united) empire. But the normal expression was in this case the "K&K monarchy". K&K = königlich und kaiserlich = royal and imperial.

I know what the REICH LAWS that fell on the heads of Jews were in DA REICH The REICHS involved ever shifting borders and appellations and
treaties and power holders.

No ideas about what you speak now in context German empire and Austria-Hungaria. Both formation of nations tried to overstep all forms of antisemitism. In both empires Jews were full citizens like all others. Since about 1860 antisemitism played not a big role any longer in Germany and Austria.

However----the RACIST CANON LAWS were carried thru all the way from the EMPEROR OF THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE--- CONSTANTINE thru the last EMPEROR of the third reich, to wit adolf-----the NUREMBERG LAWs-- and included not only complete disarmament but also DISTINCTIVE MARKINGS ON CLOTHES even down to the color YELLOW Of course you did not learn about it in Sunday School.

Give me a concrete example what you call "racist canon law" and what this means for the holy empire, the "interregnum" from 1806 - 1870, the Prussian empire and Austria-Hungaria, the democracy of Weimar and the Austrian democracy and Hitler-Germany.

The situation in Germany (with its very different structures) for Jews was by the way much better than in other countries during history. In England for example existed no problems for Jews on a very simple reason: All Jews had to leave England. And it were the crusaders from England and France (Normans), who had started to murder in the holy empire Jews. Antisemitism was nothing which came out of the holy empire. Antisemitism was transported into the holy empire.

But the victims knew.

Who was a vicitim of what in your family? I lost a very big part of my families because of the Nazis.

Interestingly-----the makers of Shariah law APED the filth.[ Denying these facts is about as silly as denying JIM CROW laws.

Eh? What do you speak about now? The fanatic antisemitism of the Nazis based on a wrong understanding of biology, which came in most parts from the racist English speaking world.

 

[zaangalewa]

...

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …" Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

?

I guess this is a part of the marketing strategy for the sales of private weapons and private war weapons, which had started in the 1970ies - about 200 years after the foundation of the USA.

 

[esalla]

He lost everything. I'm still laughing at tighter quarters:

"'Morality' naturally grew out need for the golden rule in tighter quarters."

Whaaaasssssss

If you say so mr bond

You have no sense of humor.

True as schizophrenia is not funny in any way

Not that you will ever know